Mythical, Magical, and Mystical
Untwisting a triplet of tangled terms and their associated styles of fiction
What comes to mind when you see the three words in the title? Do you consider them more or less synonymous, or do you consider them quite distinct from one another?
The words themselves certainly have similarities. They all start with “M,” for example, they all end in “ical,” and they all have a descender (y and g) giving them very similar visual shapes. More significantly, they all refer to things outside common material, historical, or “scientific” experience—you know, outside the “real” world. They are generally considered the stuff of fantasy.
For that reason, perhaps, the terms are sometimes intermixed or used interchangeably. Yet they have unique and even very different meanings, especially where fiction and fictional characters are concerned. In the quest to understand mystical fiction and mystical realism, then, let’s sort through these terms and remove the ambiguities.
Side note #1: I chose the image above from Substack’s stock photos (which is used as a thumbnail for this post) specifically because it implies a sense of the very intermixed vagueness that I’m hoping to address in this post.
Side note #2: Substack also offers a built-in AI image generator, which I specifically elect not to use because I’m not particularly interested in trying to spice up these posts with mere eye candy. Nevertheless, I give it a try now and then to see what it produces. In that spirit, I gave it the prompt “mystical magical mythical” and got images like the one below, a result that in a strange way exemplifies the very tangle that I’m hoping to unravel!
Mythical fiction
Myth is perhaps humankind’s oldest form of storytelling: the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Iliad and the Odyssey, and the Ramayana all come to mind. As stories, myths are usually concerned with gods, demi-gods, and other supernatural figures along with subjects like how the world was created and such.1
Mythic or mythical fiction, then, refers to stories concerned with matters of myth, legend, folklore, and fairy tales. (Throw anything to do with ancient Egypt in there for good measure, too!) Such stories draw on mythic tropes (story patterns), themes, and symbolism, often involving fairies, goblins, and other such creatures, as we see in The Lord of the Rings. Many hero’s quest stories like Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, and Dune are mythic in nature even though in the latter case the story is set in humanity’s distant future rather than the past. Still, it’s far enough removed from our present reality to give it a mythic flavor. Movies like Marvel’s Infinity War along with Stargate, though set in in the present day and age, are mythic because they’re far removed in space rather than time.
Mythic fiction often intersects with fantasy, but whereas fantasy (and much science fiction) is set in other worlds, mythic fiction is often set in our real world. Neil Gaiman’s Stardust is a good example of this, as the whole realm of Stormhold is a mythical kingdom that lies just over The Wall from a small village (named Wall) in modernish England. That relationship is nicely explained in the opening minute of the 2007 film made from the book:
Gaiman’s American Gods is another example of mythic fiction set in the modern world, as is Piers Anthony’s Incarnations of Immortality series. The protagonists in the latter books are mortals who become immortal holders of supernatural “offices”: Death, Time, Fate, War, Nature, Evil, Good, and Night, which are very mythic in nature. The Percy Jackson books (which my son has read but I have not) also count as mythic fiction as the stories center around the intersection of the gods of ancient Greece and Egypt with our modern world, making for some very entertaining juxtaposition. The titular protagonist, too, is the son of Poseidon, rather than an ordinary person, which clearly suggests the mythic nature of the stories.
As the word mythic is only one letter different from mystic, the two terms are easily confused even though they have little in common.2 Whereas the mythic deals with mythology and mythological patterns, the mystic deals with matters of transcendent spiritual experience as true mystics in the real world have described. Mysticism deals with God (or whatever else you want to call it), not the gods of myth, and with true aspects of human nature and human consciousness rather than myths and folklore.
Before going into more detail about mystic fiction, however, let’s look at the magical side of things because mythic fiction, especially that which crosses into fantasy, often has magical elements as well.
Whereas the mythic deals with mythology and mythological patterns, the mystic deals with matters of transcendent spiritual experience.
Magical fiction and magical realism
Because the concepts of magical and mystical both deal with non-material realities, they are sometimes used interchangeably. In fact, I’m using the term mystical realism with Deus in Fabula specifically to poach some of the existing recognition of the sub-genre of magical realism! At the same time I’m working to give mystical realism a clearer definition of its own.3
Magical realism in fiction means incorporating elements of magic into contemporary settings, as with the Harry Potter books and any number of other urban fantasies (with or without magic wands and mythical creatures like fairies, trolls, dragons, etc.)
Wikipedia’s definition of the term is concise and to the point, and also provides a clear idea of the “realism” part:
Magical realism is a style of literary fiction and art. It paints a realistic view of the world while also adding magical elements, often blurring the lines between fantasy and reality. Magic realism often refers to literature in particular, with magical or supernatural phenomena presented in an otherwise real-world or mundane setting, commonly found in novels and dramatic performances. Despite including certain magic elements, it is generally considered to be a different genre from fantasy because magical realism uses a substantial amount of realistic detail and employs magical elements to make a point about reality, while fantasy stories are often separated from reality. Magical realism is often seen as an amalgamation of real and magical elements that produces a more inclusive writing form than either literary realism or fantasy.
Magical realism appears often in Latin American literature. As Michiko Kakutani (to quote Wikipedia again) says, "The transactions between the extraordinary and the mundane that occur in so much Latin American fiction are not merely a literary technique, but also a mirror of a reality in which the fantastic is frequently part of everyday life." The magic of shamans or medicine men, for example, is an everyday experience for many indigenous peoples of the Americas. Related literature reflects that closeness.
The term magical realism is broadly descriptive rather than critically rigorous, and Matthew Strecher defines it as "what happens when a highly detailed, realistic setting is invaded by something too strange to believe." In this way, we can also count various horror novels, such as Stephen King’s debut novel, Carrie, as magical realism because Carrie’s growing telekinetic abilities, which are unleashed when she falls victim to extreme bullying, are “too strange to believe.”
But such “magic,” although it may involve otherworldly, supernatural, or non-material elements, is not mystical nor even necessarily spiritual. Instead, magic is often wholly materialistic in nature. The magic that J. K. Rowling shows in Harry Potter, for example, demonstrates a power over matter, often for destructive purposes, as well as power over people’s minds and the ability to inflict misery, torture, or death. What we don’t see is the equivalent magic that can enhance life or inspire joy.
It seems, then, that in the realm of the “magical,” matters of spirituality and metaphysics that deal with ego-transcendence or any kind of higher consciousness, including divine experiences, just don’t have a place.
Although [magic] may involve otherworldly, supernatural, or non-material elements, is not mystical nor even necessarily spiritual.
Mystical fiction and mystical realism
I use mystical here in the way that various works of spiritual literature (such as accounts of saints) speak about “mystical union” with God. Such union is an end goal, a distinct state of consciousness or awareness. Mysticism and mystical experience, on the other hand, is a broad spectrum that encompasses any number of stages along the path to the realization of that final union, often characterized by an I-Thou relationship. People can and do have varying degrees of mystical experience along that path. What I’m calling mystical realism, then, is the intersection of this broad spectrum with the everyday lives of ordinary people in our real world.
One of my favorite books in this regard is Marsha Sinetar’s classic survey, Ordinary People as Monks and Mystics. Sinetar provides a good basis for understanding mystical awareness as an ongoing, even developing, experience rather than a singular end:
Only in mystics do we observe the full expanse of mankind’s spiritual potential. For the mystic, daily life and moment-to-moment thought are linked intimately with spiritual issues. The mystic taps into and cultivates the deepest levels of his intuitive and subjective self. … What sets the mystic apart is that he is “in love with the Absolute….” (76)
Read that last line again. What sets the mystic apart is not their having achieved any particular state, but rather the being in love. Whether one calls that Absolute God, Spirit, the Cosmic Ground of Being, etc., doesn’t really matter. Words are constrained by the limitations of linguistics and cannot do justice to whatever that transcendent Absolute really is anyway, so there’s little point quibbling over vocabulary. What matters is the devotion that one feels toward Him/Her/It, that is, the love that one cultivates in seeking ultimate union with that Absolute. That devotion, then, gives a clear direction to one’s life.
What sets the mystic apart is that he is “in love with the Absolute….”
As Sinetar writes:
Mystics are a definite type of person. They have a distinctive life’s course, and their mission—regardless of their country or culture of origin—is always the same to find their way “back” to that Absolute Reality which they sense is the One True Reality, and from which they believe they’ve come. (76)
People of this mystic type, be they fictional characters or real people, include those who have realized their goal as well as those who are still actively following a path to achieve that realization. As I’ll explore my next series of posts, both cases align well to the different internal character arcs in fiction: the positive growth arc, the negative growth arc, and the static arc. Characters, after all, usually represent distinct types of people, and there are plenty of systems that catalog personality types such as Myers-Briggs and the Enneagram. Those systems, however, are psychological in nature, which is also to say, ego-focused, whereas the mystic is seeking to transcend the ego altogether. For this reason, people and characters alike can be mystical in temperament while also aligning to a distinct personality type.
Sinetar also relates three key characteristics of the mystic as given by the researcher Evelyn Underhill, which can also be expressed through fictional characters:
Mysticism is a transformative approach to life rather than a theoretical “playing” with ideas.
Mysticism involves spiritual activity, representing the individual’s absorption and deepening relationship with God. This activity absolutely influences and dominates the mystic’s path and is inseparable from it. Thus the mystic and his “path” are one.
The mystic’s dominant life-emotion becomes love. This emotional state shows itself in his progressively strengthened dedication of will toward the things of God: the expression of his will in daily life; service to him through work, relationships and everyday choices; and sacrifices of the physical/mental body in order to experience him, pay honor to him. (79)
The mystic’s dominant life-emotion becomes love.
Mystical is more specific than “spiritual”
The tagline for Deus in Fabula is “A quest for spiritual, devotional, and mystical realism in fiction.” I have to admit that I hesitated to use the word spiritual at all because the term is so overloaded.
As the previous passages from Ordinary People as Monks and Mystics demonstrate, mystical is a much more specific concept than spiritual. The latter includes the mystical, yes, but also includes a whole host of other areas that have nothing to do with devotion to God or some other Absolute, such as sectarian religiosity or morality, theology and dogma, occultism (e.g. communicating with "spirits"), drug-induced experiences, lots of stuff that falls under “New Age,” and even a great deal of outright materialism that's obscured behind spiritual-sounding terminology.
Many titles that I’ve seen on various lists of "spiritual fiction" fall into these diverse categories and aren’t at all mystical in nature. Fictional works that are written primarily to promote a particular philosophical or religious worldview are not usually mystical either. After all, mysticism is by nature very much about a personal, intimate relation with the object of one’s devotion, and that devotion doesn’t really need philosophical or theological justification. In fact, many mystics, like Saint Teresa of Avila, were downright frustrating to their theologically-bound superiors!
Still, I left spiritual in the tagline because it is probably better understood than devotional and mystical, and because I didn’t want to box myself in too much!
What do you think? Do you know of other examples?
I’m curious, then, what you think of the differences and/or similarities between the mythical, magical, and mystical, and also between the spiritual, devotional, and mystical. Please share your thoughts in the comments!
And if you know of other stories or novels that fall into these categories, I’d love to hear about them.
I say “as stories” because myths can and do serve other purposes. In Mythos and Cosmos, for example, John Knight Lundwall demonstrates that myths are "the oral imprinting press of pre-literate peoples" and belongs to a complex and rational method of information transmission amongst oral peoples. David Warner Mathisen, similarly, has written extensively on the astronomical data embedded in many worldwide myths, including stories in the Old Testament.
A case in point: I’m reading a novel called Observer by Robert Lanza and Nancy Kress. In Chapters 19 and 20, one of the characters has what is called a “mystical experience,” but then in Chapter 23 it’s described as “mythic ‘Oneness’.” (Neither word is used again after that point.)
Another bit of evidence: in September 2023, as AI was gaining traction in Internet search engines, I asked Bing chat, since branded as Microsoft CoPilot, to define “mystical fiction.” The response basically described mythical fiction instead. When I asked it to differentiate between the mythical and mystical, I got the same answer with nothing more than a replacement of one term with the other! In other words, it completely confused the two terms, as one might expect from a bit-crunching computational system. That said, CoPilot has improved as of late and gives a much more distinct responses for the two concepts.
Wikipedia does have a small, five-paragraph entry for mystical realism that refers to a minor notion in Christian existentialism about the nature of divine entities. Thus, there’s space her to give the term a new definition in the context of literature.
I agree with the designations of Mythic, Mystic and Magical as distinct and appropriate ones, and that I too have not seen exactly or overtly the intimate love, communion or devotion you speak of, in the magical or mystical fiction I have liked. I think those two words are mixed together, too, and as I say, not distinguished from each other in how they present. However, a couple of books and series I have enjoyed lean toward what you define as mystical, though perhaps both would be classified as simply magical. They are not far beyond this world. I'll give two examples.
Robin McKinley's The Blue Sword centers around an explanation of "kelar," which is a boundless power, wisdom and healing source, which runs through some families and individuals. It arises as heat and anger, turning the eyes gold, blinding and giving headaches to the neophyte. Perhaps that is the act of blazing through the human system, leaving whatever conduits, ostensibly the nervous system, but likely others, too, changed. It links one to clear seeing (beyond the physical), wisdom and integrity, so that what is Right is served. The wielder becomes a hero, a legend eventually, and along the way, that one learns to trust the kelar, to perceive its guidance and, even though not understanding why, feels impelled to do "as the kelar asks." When not in touch with this, the protagonist longs for a dream or direction (from the kelar) that has become a companion. Here there is no "conversation" or words, it is simply too intimate for that; it is a part or aspect of one's nature.
The other example is in C..J. Archer's The Watchmaker's Daughter series. Here magic is the subject, and the watchmaker's daughter is a timepiece magician. Magic is rare, and comes through families again; one has a particular kind of magic, whether it is map making, medicine, wool, paper or metalwork. The magic performed is not thought to be lasting, but the magician is definitely drawn to, yearns for engagement, immersion in the work that is the specialty. For India Steele, taking her watch apart, any clock apart, cleaning, fixing, putting it back together, is comforting and returns her to balance, a centeredness and calmness. Here we see a gesture toward love and communion.
In both of these books, the power seems to be neutral, having its own way, and is not necessarily good. The integrity and goodness of the power actually seems to belong to the person, but that is perhaps mysterious. The legends following will ascribe it to the hero. The story is a description of growing awareness, and makes no judgements about totality.
Still,